ASHOKBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement rendered in Sessions Case No.43 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Vadodara, convicting and sentencing the appellant-Ashok Dhanjibhai Vasava (original accused) to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further S.I. for one year of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In a nutshell, the prosecution case as unfolded during trial, is as under: The incident in question took place on 10th December, 2004 at about 5.30 a.m. on the road outside the house of the complainant Lataben Pandurang Pawar situated Warasiya, Shitlamata's Moholla, R.T.O. Road, Vadodara. According to the prosecution, the complainant-Lataben was residing in the said house along with her husband, three children,(one son and two daughters) and her father. On the day of the incident, when her husband had left for his job, one Ashok Vasava, with whom she had some affairs before her marriage, came to her house and asked her to accompany him. Upon her refusal, he threatened to set her on fire and dragged and took her out of the house.. Thereafter, after five to ten minutes of quarrel, the appellant-accused took the can of kerosene which was lying in the house of the complainant(deceased Lataben) and sprinkled the kerosene over her body. Thereupon, the complainant, started screaming. At that time, her children as also her father had woke up. Pursuant to this, it is alleged, that the appellant-accused set her (complainant) on fire by means of a match stick and fled away. The complainant undoubtedly screamed out in pain which resulted in the congregation of several persons there. The flames were ultimately put off. In the meantime, the husband of the complainant on receiving the news from his daughter of his wife having received burn injuries, returned home from hotel Sangraj where he was working and finding that his wife Lataben was badly burnt took her to S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara, where she was given preliminary treatment. The Doctor found her condition to be serious. The police were informed. The Doctor recorded the complaint/history as per the statement made by the complainant which has been subsequently converted to the status of a dying declaration. In the meanwhile, the police had also arrived and recorded the statement of the complainant which has again been converted to the status of a dying declaration. Upon a Yadi having been sent, the Executive Magistrate had also arrived and recorded the statement of the complainant which has again been treated as a dying declaration. The complainant- Lataben-condition deteriorated and even though she survived for 7 days, she ultimately died on 17-12-2004 at the hospital while on treatment. The appellant-accused had been arrested in the meanwhile and came to be charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. An offence was registered vide CR No. 1/316 of 2004 and the charge-sheet was filed before the learned J.M.F.C.,Vadodara. As the offence in question was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was then committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge Exh.13. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence like Panchnama of the scene of offence Exh.33, F.S.L. report Exh.45, Inquest Panchnama Exh.34, Postmortem note Exh.52 etc. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Judge recorded the statement of the appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In his statement, the appellant-accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that a false case has been filed against him, however he did not examine any witness in support of his defence. The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence held the accused guilty and convicted him of the offence of murder and passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as stated here-in-above.

(3.) Learned Counsel Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the appellant(original accused) has submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses regarding consciousness of the deceased Lataben and the time and place of occurrence. She submitted that since the evidence of these witnesses suffer from various infirmities, the appellant-accused could not have been convicted on the basis of such evidence. According to the learned Counsel the deceased Lataben having received extensive burns all over her body, she could not have been in a position to speak and the consciousness of the deceased at the time of making the dying declarations before the Doctor, the P.I. and the Executive Magistrate is highly doubtful. According to the learned Counsel the whole story of the prosecution is concocted and the appellant accused is falsely implicated in the crime in question. According to the learned Counsel, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-accused cannot be sustained , and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant-accused be acquitted of the offence with which he was charged.